3 ms·
Urbit claims, like you, exactly-once messaging is impossible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14666015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14666015 But t
by rhencke 9y ago
Urbit claims, like you, exactly-once messaging is impossible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14666015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14666015
But that doesn't mean we can't provide systems where, for all practical purposes, it is a guarantee.
Another way to think about it: SHA1 cannot provide a unique hash for every possible set of content - there are overlaps. This is the pigeonhole principle.
Yet, we have entire systems designed around assuming SHA1 is and will always be a unique hash for a piece of content (Git), and, for all practical purposes, it is a guarantee good enough to work despite that.
- occultist_throw 9y ago>Urbit claims, like you, exactly-once messaging is impossible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14666015 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14666015 >But that doesn't mean we can't provide systems where, for all practical purposes, it is a guarantee. Nuh huh. Dont you play wordgames with me. Exactly-once messaging is PROVEN impossible. And I, unlike the rest of you Urbiters, actually use standard terminology when understanding the last of 60 years of CS. > [Blablabla unrelated blather] Your point?
- rhencke 9y agoFrom all reference I have read, the phrase "exactly-once messaging" does not have a strict technical definition. Neither of your links define or use the exact term "exactly-once messaging". If you can point me to a definition of this specific phrase's standard terminology, I would be grateful. But, I cannot find one. I don't understand why you address me with such a hostile tone. What have I done to deserve this? You accuse me of playing word games, but this is not my intent. I am just trying to have a conversation about the technical aspects of a system.